Discrimination based on ethnicity and race is present in various forms in societal and communal life, not excluding jurisdiction. In this aspect, despite constituting a large portion of the United States population, Mexican Americans were viewed as citizens of secondary importance throughout history, specifically by jurisdiction. Hernandez v. Texas was one of the historical cases that somewhat altered this distorted perception. The location of the case is also significant for its in‑depth understanding. Texas does not appear to be an arbitrary place for this incident since, even compared to other southern states, its societal system may seem to be unyielding to change. The law case helped to unveil biases that hindered the work of the judicial system and highlighted which parts were the most in need of revision. Therefore, Hernandez v. Texas laid the foundation for further expansion of civil rights concerning discrimination against ethnic minorities in the jurisdiction and Mexican Americans in particular.
The Background of the Case
The case under consideration may be seen as a consequence of continuous exclusion and skewed tendencies in societal structures. In 1951, when Pedro Hernandez, a farmer, killed one of his workers, the tendency became more evident; since Hernandez’s guilt appeared indisputable the predominantly Caucasian jury of Edna, Texas, where the law case proceeded, became its crux (Jillson, 2019). The whiteness of the jury contradicted the premise of “equal protection of the laws” and constituted to a degree Hernandez’s new defense (Jillson, 2019, p. 78). The lawyers of the defendant expressed their worries that Mexican Americans were a different class in the eyes of jurisdiction – the status of this particular demographic group depended directly on the court’s decision (Jillson, 2019). It is stated that many Mexican Americans were apprehensive that the Supreme Court might have applied to them the same position as it did with the African-American population and proclaimed them “separate but equal” (Jillson, 2019, p. 78). In this way, the Mexican Americans recognized the significance of the case when it was in process and awaited the court’s decision.
The Analysis of the Court’s Decision
The Hernandez’s right to be judged by the representatives of the same ethnicity was established by the Supreme Court’s decision and accentuated the changes that started to occur in the domain of social equality at the time. According to the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing Hernandez equal protection, he had a right to be judged by a more diverse jury. In 1954, the Supreme Court decided that Pedro Hernandez had to undergo a new trial conducted by a jury that included Mexican American jurors (Jillson, 2019). The law case’s principal outcome was not the imprisonment of Hernandez as he was guilty of murder but the willingness of the Supreme Court to revise the juridical process involved and adjust it to the ethnic background of the accused. This decision proved to be essential for elevating Mexican American citizenship in Texas in particular, where risks associated with being of Hispanic origin seemed somewhat higher. By warranting Hernandez a more diverse jury, the Supreme Court acknowledged the rights’ of Mexican Americans and increased their status in the face of jurisdiction.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s role was decisive for the case, namely its equal protection clause – the clause was designed to equalize the juridical treatment in every state, securing an individual with a right for a just trial. The combination of the equal protection clause and the due process clause justified the need for incorporating a specific ethnicity into the process to avoid potential racial bias from the side of predominantly Caucasian jurors (Morin, 2016). Zuckert (2019) states apropos of the role of the amendment that “the positive task of government in securing rights can be stated in terms of the duty of governments to supply “protection of the laws” (p. 4). The inclusion of Mexican American jurors into Hernandez’s trial that was guaranteed by the Supreme Court completed the governmental task outlined in the citation. Additionally, the outcome of the case may be linked to the civil rights movement that deployed in parallel to the events surrounding Hernandez’s future.
The Impact of the Case on Mexican American Rights’ Movement
The defense of the Mexican Americans’ rights accelerated to a degree as an outcome of the case. The Civil Rights Movement that was happening approximately at the same time as Hernandez v. Texas may have played an essential role in its conclusion, changing the political and social atmosphere of the historical period. It is acclaimed regarding the case that “it addressed the invisibility of Latinos/as at a national level, particularly to the systematic deprivation of Latina/o rights” (Morin, 2016, p. 303). The case can be viewed as one of the first attempts to approach the issue of the exclusion of Mexican Americans from specific societal structures, the juridical one particularly. Even though Mexican American citizens were classified as white, unofficial segregation still existed in education, for instance (Santiago, 2016). Since the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement appears to be an under-researched issue, the law case’s importance is elevated further as it constitutes a piece of primary evidence for the movement.
The discrimination against Mexican Americans and the unrest experienced by this part of the population in Texas was, to a degree, mitigated by the outcomes of the case. With the progression of the movement, the need for trials concerning ethnical minorities based on the principles grounded in the due process clause grew accordingly. The case under consideration may have set in motion the inclusion of ethnically diverse professionals in the jurisdiction domain to ensure that the outcomes of a trial are not affected by racial biases. The Chicano movement initiated nearly five years after Hernandez’s trial in the Southern states can also be viewed as indirectly affected by the case (Morin, 2016). Political demonstrations organized by the movement aimed to defend the rights of Mexican American citizens and overcome the unofficial segregation, aided by the cases’ aftermath.
Conclusions
Despite the objective of protecting rights, the field of jurisdiction is not devoid of racial biases. The Mexican American population has a long history of being discriminated against, and a courtroom for many may represent a place where absolute justice should prevail. Hernandez v. Texas demonstrated that instances of discrimination could be controlled and established further the importance of ethnical representation for ensuring the fairness of a trial and excluding the possibility of bias against an accused. The case indicated that all ethnic minorities should be under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection, extending the limits of its application. In conclusion, Hernandez v. Texas initially denied the right for equal protection granted by the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of the defendant’s race, serving as a landmark in the history of jurisdiction.
References
Jillson, C. (2019). Texas politics: Governing the Lone Star State. Routledge.
Morin, J. L. (2016). Latinos and criminal justice: An encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
Santiago, M. (2016). Erasing differences for the sake of inclusion: How Mexican/Mexican American students construct historical narratives. Theory & Research in Social Education, 45(1), 43–74.
Zuckert, M. (2019). On the Fourteenth Amendment: A textual analysis. Perspectives on Political Science, 1–7.